Militarization of Police Departments

[A400 Fan]

Do you have some plan for eliminating human error? Police raid the wrong house by mistake. Homeowner defends before s/he knows they're police. Somebody gets killed. It shouldn't happen, but I can't think of any way to prevent it every time for the rest of forever

Stop acting like Rambo in the middle of the night, maybe then they can get the address right

[OuTcAsT]

JimDandy Wrote:

So you want to prosecute the guy in the back of the van whose only "crime" is being the first through the door when a misunderstanding resident shoots at him.

If he is at the wrong address, and an innocent person is shot, he Should be considered complicit in a "crime" indeed. ADW, manslaughter, or possibly homicide. Same as I would if I went to the wrong house and shot someone as a result.

"just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse, that was proven a long time ago.

They are mere civilians, same as us, hired to do a job, same as us. They should be equally as accountable for their screw-ups, same as us.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

It may be a bit off-topic but, I think it is germane to the discussion:

The huge change in "attitude" over the years has had a dramatic effect on the way LE is perceived by the very public they used to exist to protect.

You are perceiving wrongly. There has been no change in "attitude." There have been police officers who abuse their powers and have bad attitudes, departments that by culture and policy are too aggressive and violent, and administrators and elected officials who cover for bad cops since the dawn of policing. There is no evidence to suggest that this problem has grown over time, and a reasonable argument can be made that it has actually diminished over time.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Fast forward to the court date, I attend to observe, Officer testifies that My Son was "weaving all over and, even struck the curb" Son asks to see the dashcam evidence. The tape is played and, clearly shows the vehicle traveling within the lane, no sign of "weaving" or contact with the curb. Case is dismissed as the Judge could find no evidence of the allegation.

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

And the judge didn't care that the officer was caught lying under oath. That's part of the problem too.

There is no evidence the officer was lying. Dash cams generally automatically activate when the lights and sirens are activated. For a traffic violation, that would not happen until after the violation was observed for the obvious reason that there's no need to drive code or manually activate the dash cam until after an officer sees a violation

All the dash cam video means is that after the officer decided to stop OuTcAsT's son, there were no observed traffic violations. I would venture a guess that most people are quite careful about their driving when an officer is driving code behind them.

This does not mean there is any additional evidence (beyond the officer's testimony) that OuTcAsT's son was violating traffic law, just that the assumption that the officer was lying is based on ignorance and probably bias as well.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

My point is this: It seems that nowadays, officers tend to simply "throw charges" at anything just to see if they can make something stick. They don't seem as interested in deterring crime so much as "make arrests" Like they have some sort of "quota" to fill. Incidents like this do nothing to help prevent crime or, protect the public safety, they are "fishing" for anything that will "stick" It's like a game to see how many charges they can file in a shift. It creates a huge void in Trust.

What evidence do you have that this phenomenon is new? One interesting thing about the "quota" rumor is that establishing traffic ticket quotas is actually illegal in my state and many others. Officers don't get to throw charges at anything, that's up to the city or county prosecuting attorney. Generally when non-traffic police conduct a traffic stop, they are indeed "fishing"- fishing for warrants, drugs, and illegal weapons. Which is why frequently if you don't have any of those and are not a jerk, you will get warnings instead of tickets.

As to any focus on making arrests as opposed to deterring crime, you've got it exactly backwards. The emphasis community policing model is relatively new to law enforcement, and 35 years ago, the actual stated emphasis would have been on making arrests. Nowadays virtually all local police departments emphasize community policing.

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

Sure its not difficult. Quit "no knock " SWAT raids. They weren't started as a safety measure but to get in before the BG could flush drugs.
Its not worth it.

Not so much. Likelihood of destruction of evidence is just one exigent circumstance that could justify a no-knock warrant. Second, a no-knock warrant with a SWAT team still involves announcing who you are as you go in the door. While it has happened (In my home state, actually), where a wrong address combined with innocent but non-English speaking inhabitants responded to a SWAT warrant service with gunfire, in most cases it's hard to argue that a SWAT team coming in your door yelling "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" didn't tell you they were the police.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

I can think of a way that would certainly reduce the incidence of it, if not eliminate it altogether. Remove the immunity that LE hides behind.

If I shoot someone by mistake ( you know, human error ) I will be charged, tried, and likely spend some time in prison.

Police officers do not have that same fear, if they did, there would likely be a paradigm shift in the use of the "no knock" type raids that usually propagate the deaths of innocents by "human error".

That's because you're caught up in the fallacy that you are the same as the police, and the police are the same as you. That's not the case.

If you were simply arguing that the police are also civilians and that they are no better than you, you would be on safe ground.

Police officers have some forms of legal protection that you do not because they are agents of the state with legal obligations to do things that you are actually legally obligated not to do.

Courts and legislatures have recognized that because police officers must make potentially fatal split-second decisions based on imperfect information, that as long as the officer's behavior was objectively reasonable based on the information the officer knew, the officer will have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is not total immunity, and officers can still be personally liable if they acted unreasonably. Individual officers do not have some kind of absolute immunity to lawsuits or criminal penalties.

Additionally, if you shoot someone by mistake, there is actually no guarantee that you will be charged, and if an officer shoots someone by mistake, there is no guarantee that he or she will not be charged- it has happened both ways depending on the circumstances.

If you are interested in a world where the police are personally liable for civil suits incurred during the course of their reasonably performed legal duties, you are interested in a world where the police don't actually do anything, and in that case, I'm guessing you would be here with a very different complaint.

[zincwarrior]

Not so much. Likelihood of destruction of evidence is just one exigent circumstance that could justify a no-knock warrant.

Name a non-hostage situation where there are exigent circumstances.

Second, a no-knock warrant with a SWAT team still involves announcing who you are as you go in the door.

Note the key part of your sentence: as they go in the door. Thats at the same time flash bangs are going off, shouting etc. etc.

Why go in at all? Make them come out.

While it has happened (In my home state, actually), where a wrong address combined with innocent but non-English speaking inhabitants responded to a SWAT warrant service with gunfire, in most cases it's hard to argue that a SWAT team coming in your door yelling "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" didn't tell you they were the police.

Especially not after you're already dead because you picked up your EDC because someone just kicked in your door and is shouting at you with blinding lights.

And why do you need such except for felony murder/kidnapping/rape in progress type situations?

[OuTcAsT]

Madcap_Magician Wrote:

There is no evidence the officer was lying. Dash cams generally automatically activate when the lights and sirens are activated. For a traffic violation, that would not happen until after the violation was observed for the obvious reason that there's no need to drive code or manually activate the dash cam until after an officer sees a violation

All the dash cam video means is that after the officer decided to stop OuTcAsT's son, there were no observed traffic violations. I would venture a guess that most people are quite careful about their driving when an officer is driving code behind them.

And, you would be totally wrong. The dashcams on the police cruisers in this city run a continuous loop from beginning of shift, until end. I saw the video, from several minutes before the officer even saw my truck, followed it for about 2.5 miles, ( at night) before he "lit him up" .

The judge also saw the verbal interaction after the stop, he commented that the officer had no justifiable reason for the stop.let alone the search request. It was an obvious lie under oath.

That's because you're caught up in the fallacy that you are the same as the police, and the police are the same as you. That's not the case.

There have been police officers who abuse their powers and have bad attitudes, departments that by culture and policy are too aggressive and violent, and administrators and elected officials who cover for bad cops since the dawn of policing.

Thanks for making my point !

Officers don't get to throw charges at anything, that's up to the city or county prosecuting attorney. Generally when non-traffic police conduct a traffic stop, they are indeed "fishing"- fishing for warrants, drugs, and illegal weapons.

Indeed, see my comment about serving on a Grand Jury.

You ask for "evidence" I believe any thinking adult, that is in my age group, (50+) can tell you from personal experience and simple observation that the mindset has changed drastically and, not for the better. Obfuscate all you like, whom do I believe ? You, or my lying eyes ?

[SHR970]

Dash cams generally automatically activate when the lights and sirens are activated.

In some areas the officers can and will turn them off. Many of them don’t like being recorded.

One interesting thing about the "quota" rumor is that establishing traffic ticket quotas is actually illegal in my state and many others.

So you have goals to achieve not quotas. A traffic officer is rated based on whether or not he meets the goals.

Second, a no-knock warrant with a SWAT team still involves announcing who you are as you go in the door.

Flash bangs are designed to deafen, blind, and disorient you.
BOOOM, BOOOOM, BOOOOM police search warrant BOOOOM. Yeah like you are going to be able to hear and follow their instructions. And that assumes that only ONE of them is yelling at you.

One of the problems is that no knock warrants and the use of SWAT teams has become the norm not the exception in many jurisdictions.

[guruatbol]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

JimDandy Wrote:

Start with the shooter(s) and move from there, Just like any other case, if there are "accomplices" They should be tried for their roles as well.

If you remove the "protected class" status, everyone that has a hand in such activities will be darned sure they are correct before proceeding.

A little "skin in the game" could make a world of difference.

But, this is off-topic and, has had many a thread on it's own.

There is no protected class. If the cop makes an error and ends up killing someone for example there is always an investigation. Most agencies have a different agency investigate. Let me tell you there is no love loss an if the guy was negligent he will be held accountable.

After the investigation the DA can and does frequently file charges. So the guy looses his job, benefits and retirement, can't get another job in the field that is likely his only option for a career and the gets sued in civil court and because of the findings of the investigation he will likely loose and be broke for life.

No add jail time if he looses to the DA.

Now if he was found to be within policy, he may still loose his job, and still go to civil court, but likely the municipality he works for will cover it.

I worked IA so, I am pretty sure these things haven't changed in 10 years since my retirement.

So, yes there is a higher standard and believe you me nobody want to go down for protecting a bad cop. For example if I know or should have known and do nothing about this bad behavior of either a peer or subordinate I am in as much trouble as he is.

Part of the reason many guys just through the charges on the pile is they are covering their butt. I would always cover my but, period! Nobody is worth sacrificing my families future!

Mel

[Wyosmith]

Bobcat45, I agree with you.
But I do wonder how many British citizens were killed by "police" (the Kings Men) from the Boston massacre to the battle of Lexington (5 years) for no good reason.
Then I wonder how many Americans have been wrongfully killed in the last 5 years by American Police. Clearly the point of no return has not yet come, but it’s not because there is less murder and battery being committed by government.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

Name a non-hostage situation where there are exigent circumstances.

In virtually all hostage situations you wouldn't need a warrant at all as a result of the hot pursuit exception to the requirement for a search warrant. Unless you are talking about something more like a kidnapping where the victim is suspected to be held inside.

The three general exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule are:

1. Officers have reason to suspect the threat of violence.
2. Officers have reason to suspect evidence will be destroyed if warning is given.
3. Residents are already aware of officer's presence and authority.

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

Note the key part of your sentence: as they go in the door. Thats at the same time flash bangs are going off, shouting etc. etc.

Why go in at all? Make them come out.

Surround and call-out is a valid option. I agree in most cases it would be better than a no-knock warrant for most drug-related searches. The potential for destruction of evidence is high, but it may be possible to have the utility company block the residence sewer and water lines, which drastically limits the ability to flush drugs. Even when they are flushed, the solution is to test the toilet bowl water. Since drug charges are based on the weight of illicit drugs possessed or sold, it may even be possible to charge based on the volume of water contaminated with illegal drugs.

In my state we do this with marijuana-laced edibles, which is really kind of funny, because since brownies weigh so much more than just leaf marijuana, the brownies will actually get you in a ton more trouble.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

And, you would be totally wrong. The dashcams on the police cruisers in this city run a continuous loop from beginning of shift, until end. I saw the video, from several minutes before the officer even saw my truck, followed it for about 2.5 miles, ( at night) before he "lit him up" .

The judge also saw the verbal interaction after the stop, he commented that the officer had no justifiable reason for the stop.let alone the search request. It was an obvious lie under oath.

I stand corrected, then, and I apologize. I didn't know some agencies record the entire shift. Your son ran into a dishonest police officer. That certainly happens. It's strange that the officer did that knowing the entire shift was recorded.

What were you told by the officer's agency when you filed a complaint?

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Thanks for making my point !

As I understand it, your point was that there has been a "huge change" in the attitude of police officers over the years to be 1. adversarial toward the public, 2. more interested in making arrests than deterring crime, 3. no longer interested in protecting the public.

I then pointed out that there have been aggressive, corrupt, criminal, and/or rude police since the dawn of time. My point was that the existence of this minority subgroup of police officers is not prima facie evidence of the downward trend you claim. I further pointed out that theories of how policing should be conducted have over time grown more community-oriented, not less, and that many of the most rampant and wide-scale abuses by law enforcement are found in the past, not the present, and are the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Indeed, see my comment about serving on a Grand Jury.

I'm not sure whether or not you have a problem with that practice, but the legal standard is quite clear that as long as officers observe a traffic violation, they are able to conduct a stop, regardless of whether or not that was the real reason the officer wanted to conduct the stop.

You ask for "evidence" I believe any thinking adult, that is in my age group, (50+) can tell you from personal experience and simple observation that the mindset has changed drastically and, not for the better. Obfuscate all you like, whom do I believe ? You, or my lying eyes ?

You seem solidly convinced that the plural of "anecdote" is "data." It is not. If you spent an entire year collecting stories about bad cops and managed to come up enough to tarnish even a tenth of one percent of the law enforcement officers in the United States, I would be extremely surprised. If you are interested in trying, there are about 750,000 police officers in the United States, so you will need to come up with at least 750 verifiable incidents of police misconduct.

Even if you somehow managed to do that... you'll have only managed to implicate one in a thousand police officers, which is hardly grounds to make sweeping claims about what all, most, or even many cops are doing wrong, and says nothing about the relative frequency of abuse over time, for which you have still provided no evidence.

Do you regularly judge groups of people by the actions of (let's generously allow that you did find 750 incidents of police misconduct) 0.001% of the group?

That's certainly enough to indict CCW holders, or actually pretty much any group of people you care to name, as a bunch of psychotic loonies.

[OuTcAsT]

Madcap_Magician Wrote;

You seem solidly convinced that the plural of "anecdote" is "data." It is not.

I was not supplying anecdotes in lieu of "data", I merely used a couple of instances of personal experience to illustrate my opinion.

As I understand it, your point was that there has been a "huge change" in the attitude of police officers over the years to be 1. adversarial toward the public, 2. more interested in making arrests than deterring crime, 3. no longer interested in protecting the public.

That is, indeed, my opinion of the situation, based on my own personal experience and, observation. You also expressed your opinion and we obviously disagree.

I have witnessed the change in my little corner of the world first hand, over many years and that "data" ( my perception) has shaped my opinion that the shift toward more heavy handed tactics has led to a huge rift in the public perception of law enforcement . I am clearly not alone in my perception, or my opinion. If I were, we would not be participating in this discussion nor, would it be on the forefront of almost every news agency and, water cooler discussion on an almost constant basis.

What were you told by the officer's agency when you filed a complaint?

"We'll look into it and, get back to you" However, that never happened. Obviously, this officer was headed for disaster and, it soon caught up with him. A few weeks later he "mistakenly" shot and killed an unarmed man:

http://www.wkrn.com/story/12389244/1...rsuit-shooting

Both officers were ultimately cleared of criminal charges. After that incident, the officer decided he would slap his ol' lady around a bit;

http://www.lebanondemocrat.com/article/tldnews/152984

He is no longer with the department.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

I was not supplying anecdotes in lieu of "data", I merely used a couple of instances of personal experience to illustrate my opinion.

That's fine, and your opinion is widely held. Whether it's a majority opinion or just a substantial minority isn't clear, even on the gun boards. My point is that your opinion is not based on sufficient data for me to share it.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

"We'll look into it and, get back to you" However, that never happened. Obviously, this officer was headed for disaster and, it soon caught up with him. A few weeks later he "mistakenly" shot and killed an unarmed man:

http://www.wkrn.com/story/12389244/1...rsuit-shooting

Both officers were ultimately cleared of criminal charges. After that incident, the officer decided he would slap his ol' lady around a bit;

http://www.lebanondemocrat.com/article/tldnews/152984

He is no longer with the department.

I'm sorry your family went through that. At this point it's clear that regardless of the status of the complaint, there's no point in finding out if anything was done since he no longer works there and is no longer employable as a police officer. I understand why that experience would sour your view of police officers.

In the shooting that followed, it looks like most or all of the error goes to the other officer, though, and that your officer was then dismissed following a criminal charge that would make it impossible to be a police officer.

[OuTcAsT]

Madcap_Magician Wrote;

I understand why that experience would sour your view of police officers.

I have no "sour" view of police officers in general. I have worked along side many fine officers and, I respect the service they provide. My animus is toward the Law Enforcement establishment. Our Legislators, the courts, and, the litigious society we live in, has created a paramilitary monstrosity within our communities that , while trying to "do good" Is often times at odds with the greater public interest it exists to serve.

You hire an employee to protect you and, wind up needing protection from him.

[barnbwt]

there's no point in finding out if anything was done since he no longer works there and is no longer employable as a police officer.

Uh, justice and prevention of similar events or deterrence? Nope, nothing to see here at all, just move along.

TCB

[OuTcAsT]

barnbwt Wrote;

Nope, nothing to see here at all, just move along.

Unfortunately, that is pretty much how the Police department and, the City "court" handled the complaint. You cannot expect much from a "judge" that is merely a local attorney, appointed by the Mayor, and, whose salary is paid by the same city entity that pays the police department.

Justice ? Hardly.

[BobCat45]

Wyosmith, I owe you an answer but have found the exchange between OuTcAsT and Madcap_Magician to be informative and though-provoking and didn't wish to distract.

You are right, the King's men killed a lot of subjects and the police kill - rightfully or wrongfully - people every day. Randy Weaver and the Branch-whatevers were not unique, stuff happens.

I'm on both sides of this argument because I know police officers who I trust completely, who I'm honored to hang around with at the Highpower matches. I want them to have whatever hardware they need to keep them safe while they do their jobs. But I grew up in a place where the police were primarily blue-suited enforcers owned by the corrupt power structure. It was healthier to stay low, out of sight and beneath their notice, and too quiet to hear, than to speak up / stand up for what was right.

This sounds craven (even to me!) but it is the way it was, and the way it still is in a lot of instances.

Note that Patrick Henry, in the speech you alluded to, appealed to "Freedom" - but the Revolution was about taxes and essentially about the crown taking too much and giving nothing of value in return. It was about money. People don't take up arms for abstract ideals, they go to war to keep their "way of life" which means their livelihood - or to keep from being exterminated. Or, sometimes, to try to exterminate those who at one time "did them wrong" and who are now less powerful than they once were.

Until and unless the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" becomes clear to the populace at large, and is perceived by sufficient numbers as an actual menace, we will go along to get along, keep our heads down and try to stay out of trouble.

I'll shut up now - if I go on I'll wind up banned from the site, and I kind of like hanging around with y'all so I don't want that to happen.

[jimbob86]

You are right, the King's men killed a lot of subjects and the police kill - rightfully or wrongfully - people every day. Randy Weaver and the Branch-whatevers were not unique, stuff happens.

When bad "stuff happens" without negative consequenses, then there is nothing deterring more of the same.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[johnelmore]

With the Islamic State in the news every day and knowing they might have several hundred fighters with passports that allow them to reach the United States let me ask...are you still against the police having a few armored vehicles and AR15s? I am one who strongly believes that at least the school administrators should have access to pistols and rifles. All officers should have access to an AR15 and military grade body armor. What happens when a fighter for the Islamic State comes to the school or some other evil character? When it happens many of you will change your tune...

[cookie5]

Been going on for a long time and the us against them the cops thinking changed them from peace officers to LEOs. That being said I have had some wonderful encounters with cops that have made me happy they were cops.

[kilimanjaro]

Johnelmore, think Beslan. Westgate Mall. Mumbai.

[OuTcAsT]

johnelmore wrote:

What happens when a fighter for the Islamic State comes to the school or some other evil character?

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN !!!

Seriously, if such an event occurs, it will likely play out much like other "school shootings" The guy will commit an act of carnage, likely kill himself in the name of his "religion" and, LE will arrive after the fact, with armored vehicles, body armor, and AR-15s to take a body count and, have a press conference.

I am one who strongly believes that at least the school administrators should have access to pistols and rifles.

On this, we can agree. That would be the most likely way to stop, or at least reduce the casualties.

When seconds count...

[jimbob86]

What happens when a fighter for the Islamic State comes to the school

In places like where I live, the cavalry will be too late: It's 12 miles from the County LE Center to my kids' school. Any well armed and organized terrorist force could do whatever they wanted to do in a dozen minutes .....

The only guns that will matter are those on scene when the incident starts.